Vanilla Test on Forum-software.org available

lastnico

Hi everybody ! You can now consult the test of Vanilla on http://www.forum-software.org/vanilla/test Do not hesitate to give your opinion about it ! Cheers.

bjrn

Hrm. Their testing methods seem a bit strange. For instance, a negative point for phpBB was apprently "HTML 4.01", which i don't really get. And they didn't really seem to have decided whether or not to include extensions as part of Vanilla or not. So Atom and RSS feeds were listed as being part of Vanilla, smileys as not being, and they said that Vanilla didn't have any private messaging... Still, always nice when Vanilla gets mentioned somewhere. :)

lastnico

it seems to be a mistake, I will fix these errors ASAP For the non compliant HTML 4.01 of PhpBB, I think it's normal to be a negative point, because these language became more and more deprecated.

bjrn

Oh, it was that the 4.01 was non-compliant, then I understand. It was just that it said 4.01 and nothing else, so I wasn't sure if it was because 4.01 was somehow considered a bad choice (as opposed to XHTML I guess). Personally, I prefer HTML 4.01 (strict) over XHTML 1.0, but that's just me. :)

lastnico

Yes, and it is fixed now. Thanks for your comments ;-)

garymardell

Technologies or plugins required
The information helps you to know what the user needs exactly to use this forum correctly.
HTML and AJAX

how does the user need html and ajax? maybe javascript enabled browser would be more suitable. Also Vanilla has most the features if you account for extensions. I reckon that is abit unfair as vanilla is trying not to be the next php nuke of forum software with all its features yet you can have all the features. Maybe if they add in sometihng like extension instead of no or yes for some.

bjrn

I'm sorry if I sounded a bit snarky before, it was just that I had just had a discussion with someone who (in my opinion) had a very strange view on how forums should work (I mean really strange). I might not agree with everything, but thanks for including Vanilla in the list.

outbreak

wow, it only got 3 out of 5 stars with your staff? that's awful. what kind of review did you give it? it's by far the most flexible forum software out there and can accomplish anything else that the others advertise.

remouk

Negative points: "Lacks of features". Well, it seems like they forgot extensions. They just missed the whole point of Vanilla!

outbreak

yeah, if anything, vanilla has the most features.

outbreak

+ Positive points
Innovative ideas
AJAX
Simple and efficient interface

– Negative points
Can be too different for some users
Lacks of features

ajax is one of the positive points? are you kidding me? i'm sorry, this whole review bothers me. it appears to have been reviewed by someone who has absolutely no idea what any of this "web 2.0" stuff even means.

Minisweeper

how is ajax not a positive point? it's beautifully and usefully implemented.

Jazzman

I agree with the AJAX point... Vanilla doesn't "abuse" it, but only uses it where necessary. (Btw, do you also hate www.live.com and google's portal sites? AJAX overkill if you asked me... I like it in gmail though :) I have more trouble with the negative point: "Can be too different for some users". Why should different be a negative thing ^^

Minisweeper

I can see how being different is a problem in general opinion these days. It's also a positive though, really.

outbreak

ajax is definitely a positive point in the grand scheme, but its not so important that it should be listed above the ability to drastically change themes, add extensions, and maintain a clean, healthy environment. it seems more like listing ajax as a positive point would be the same as listing css as a positive point.

they're just tools to make the system work, they have nothing to do with the idea of the product itself.

Minisweeper

Now i'm agreed.

3stripe

All humans are resistant to change by nature. Quasi-scientific fact. I think. So "different" is never easy.

Toivo

so what is this? what about people? or could somebody give some sample how is it done in other forums (more easily)? --->User base integration <i>none</i> This feature is useful when you would like to integrate your forum with an existing solution.

lastnico

HTML and AJAX give an idea on how the forum has been developed, and I think we can consider AJAX based forum totally differently than a simple Javascript script which give a confirm() alert. About User base integration, the Tomcat and J2EE framework give a standardized solution to map any applications to an existing database and userbase, and even if Vanilla is PHP based, it is easier to done than a forum using PhpBB (without hacks I mean) AJAX is a new API, which totally renew old technologies and which is made of these old technologies.. So if, you think Forum-software.org webmasters do not know what web 2.0 mean, please go back 10 years before, and show me that web 2.0 was already here. Of course, the "Lack of features" negative points seems to be strange, if you know that Vanilla provide many extensions, but we are talking about a standalone product, not about a forum + its extensions + its community + the companies behind it. More over, extensions are sometimes badly supported and not always compatible with the current version of the forum software, so yes, "Lack of features" for the vanilla installation ;-) of Vanilla IS a negative point.

lastnico

And for the "Too different for some users", it's just an information about newbie losers which do not understand why there is not thousand of threads under forums under categories in Vanilla. I'm really sure it can bother some people.

garymardell

Lack of features - maybe you could change that rather than jsut on install as, people will not think that vanilla doesnt have lots of features...which we know it does. Maybe someting like features must be added through extensions would be more appropriate. You think?